A
form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political
institutions by which a
government of a
state is organized in order to exert its powers over a
body politic. Synonyms include "regime type" and "system of government". This definition holds even if the government is unsuccessful in exerting its power.
Churches, corporations, clubs, and other sub-national entities also have "government" forms, but in this article only the organization of states is discussed.
Names of governments
Nineteen states in the world do not explicitly name their government forms in their official name (the official name of
Canada, for instance, is simply "Canada"), but most have an official name which identifies their form of government, or at least the form of government toward which they are striving:
Venezuela is "
Bolivarian republic" which is meant to emphasize its descendance from
Simon Bolivar.
Uruguay is "
Oriental republic" which hints to it being successor of the Provincia Oriental del Río de la Plata.
Government ideology is also a common signifier appended to "republic." Besides the Comoros, four other nations specifically dictate that they are Islamic republics.
Asian nations influenced by
Maoism may emphasize their belief system by specifying the
People as a whole in their official names:
Laos is a people's democratic republic, and
Bangladesh and
China are people's republics.
Vietnam is a socialist republic.
Finally,
Tanzania emphasizes the cohesion of its state as a
united republic.
300px|thumb|right|A color-coded legend of forms of government. Click on map for descriptions below.Attributes of government
Beyond official typologies it is important to think about
regime types by looking at the general attributes of the forms of government :
- Personalistic or impersonal
- Composition of the legislative power (rubber stamp or active)
- Number of coalitions or party-appointed legislators in assemblies
- Strong institutional capacity or weak capacity
Other empirical and conceptual problems
On the surface, identifying a form of government appears to be easy. Most would say that the United States is a
democratic republic while the former Soviet Union was a
totalitarian state. However, as Kopstein and Lichbach (2005:4) argue, defining regimes is tricky. Defining a form of government is especially problematic when trying to identify those elements that are essential to that form. There appears to be a disparity between being able to identify a form of government and identifying the necessary characteristics of that form.
For example, in trying to identify the essential characteristics of a
democracy, one might say "elections." However, both citizens of the former
Soviet Union and citizens of the
United States voted for candidates to public office in their respective states. The problem with such a comparison is that most people are not likely to accept it because it does not comport with their sense of reality. Since most people are not going to accept an evaluation that makes the former
Soviet Union as democratic as the
United States, the usefulness of the concept is undermined.
In political science, it has long been a goal to create a typology or taxonomy of
polities, as typologies of political systems are not obvious . It is especially important in the
political science fields of
comparative politics and
international relations. One important example of a book which attempts to do so is
Robert Dahl's
Polyarchy (Yale University Press (1971)).
One approach is to further elaborate on the nature of the characteristics found within each regime. In the example of the
United States and the
Soviet Union, both did conduct elections, and yet one important difference between these two regimes is that the
USSR had a
single-party system, with all other parties being outlawed. In contrast, the United States effectively has a
bipartisan system with political parties being regulated, but not forbidden. A system generally seen as a
representative democracy (for instance
Canada,
India and the
United States) may also include measures providing for: a degree of
direct democracy in the form of
referendums and for
deliberative democracy in the form of the extensive processes required for constitutional amendment.
Another complication is that a number of
political systems originate as
socio-economic movements and are then carried into governments by specific
parties naming themselves after those movements. Experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves. Some examples are as follows:
- Perhaps the most widely cited example of such a phenomenon is the communist movement. This is an example of where the resulting political systems may diverge from the original socio-economic ideologies from which they developed. This may mean that adherents of the ideologies are actually opposed to the political systems commonly associated with them. For example, activists describing themselves as Trotskyists or communists are often opposed to the communist states of the 20th century.
- Islamism is also often included on a list of movements that have deep implications for the form of government. Indeed, many nations in the Islamic world use the term Islamic in the name of the state. However, these governments in practice exploit a range of different mechanisms of power (for example debt and appeals to nationalism). This means that there is no single form of government that could be described as “Islamic” government. Islam as a political movement is therefore better seen as a loose grouping of related political practices rather than a single, coherent political movement.
- The basic principles of many other popular movements have deep implications for the form of government those movements support and would introduce if they came to power. For example, bioregional democracy is a pillar of green politics.
See also
